Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?
After each weekend we take a look at the major incidents, to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
In this week's VAR Review: Was Brentford's Christian Nørgaard lucky to escape a red card at Arsenal? Should Liverpool have been given a penalty for handball by James Ward-Prowse? And how did semiautomated offside go in its first weekend?
Arsenal 1-1 Brentford
Possible red card: Challenge by Nørgaard on Martinelli
What happened: In the 28th minute, Gabriel Martinelli made a run down the left flank as Christian Nørgaard gave chase. The Brentford midfielder attempted to win the ball but went through Martinelli in trying to do so. Referee Simon Hooper produced a yellow card. It was checked for a serious foul play red card by the VAR, James Bell.
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: Should Nørgaard have received a red card which would have reduced Brentford to 10 men for over an hour? Or was a yellow card a justifiable disciplinary outcome?
Nørgaard can consider himself fortunate, because there are obvious considerations for a red card. The Brentford player made a challenge from behind, which was off the ground and through the player with little chance of being able to play the ball. If the referee had produced a red card, there wouldn't have been a VAR intervention.
Yet there are also reasons that a yellow card could be supported, which is why Bell, who was working as a VAR for only the third time after coming through the training program, didn't intervene.
Taken in isolation, the freeze-frame of the challenge made it look a certain red card. Nørgaard didn't make the challenge directly into Martinelli, and his left leg didn't really make a scissor action as he went to ground. If either of these aspects had been different, then a red card would surely have been recommended.
Verdict: The KMI panel has ruled that there's been two missed interventions to give a red card for serious foul play this season -- Brighton & Hove Albion's Pervis Estupiñán vs. West Ham United and Everton's James Tarkowski vs. Liverpool -- compared to five across last season.
This feels like the kind of challenge where a red card is the better outcome by the referee, but it doesn't reach the threshold for VAR. There has been only one previous example of that with serious foul play this season, for the tackle by Brentford's Nathan Collins on Aston Villa's Youri Tielemans last month.
Possible offside: Tierney when scoring
What happened: Arsenal took the lead in the 26th minute through Kieran Tierney, with the Scotland international scoring from close range after a cross from Ethan Nwaneri. However, it was checked by the VAR for offside.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
Action shots of the recently introduced SOAT in the premier league.
VAR review: Semiautomated offside technology (SAOT) finally made its debut in the Premier League this weekend, six months later than planned. None of the offside calls were particularly taxing, so there was no repeat of the eight-minute stoppage we saw in the FA Cup tie between AFC Bournemouth and Wolves last month.
It took just over a minute for Tierney's goal to be disallowed, so with the celebration there was barely an impact on the game. The animation was quick to be shown on the TV output too, just seconds afterward. This has been inconsistent, though, taking several minutes in some cases. This is largely down to the broadcaster trying to find the right moment to interrupt the live coverage. The Premier League was sharing the graphic on social media quicker than the broadcaster in some cases.
Verdict: The two offside interventions -- the other gave Ipswich Town a goal at Chelsea -- were very straightforward, so it's impossible to draw conclusions at this stage.
The biggest success came in Brighton vs. Leicester, with the VAR confirming that Caleb Okoli was onside for the goal which made it 2-2. It came from a cross by Bilal El Khannouss on a set-piece situation with several players in close proximity. This kind of offside was taking four or five minutes with the old technology, as multiple defenders would need to be manually checked to see who created the virtual offside line. With SAOT, it's automatically determined and the VAR just has to approve the outcome, and it's much quicker.
#BHALEI - 74'
— Premier League Match Centre (@PLMatchCentre) April 12, 2025
The referee's call of goal was checked and confirmed by VAR - with Okoli in an onside position. pic.twitter.com/iWzp42mLH3
The main complaint has been that the animation does not include the "kick point" to determine the offside position, and there's no real-life overlay. (It's a standalone graphic, whereas UEFA knits the animation into the play.)
The first marginal call will no doubt cause controversy, especially with the Premier League's animation not moving directly in line with the players. This is likely because the "tolerance level" of 5cm has been maintained, which isn't the case with any other competition using SAOT where "toenail offsides" have returned. If the camera moved directly in line, a player within the 5cm tolerance would be shown to just break through the offside wall.
Liverpool 2-1 West Ham
Possible penalty: Handball by Ward-Prowse
What happened: Liverpool won a corner in the 54th minute, which was swung into the area by Alexis Mac Allister. The ball went over the heads of Virgil van Dijk and Luis Díaz as both jumped, before striking the hand of James Ward-Prowse. Ibrahima Konaté was the only Liverpool player who seemed to ask for a penalty, with referee Andy Madley playing on. It was checked by the VAR, John Brooks.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Maybe there's something about Ward-Prowse and how he positions himself on corners, because we've been here before. So how is he getting away with "handball" in the penalty area?
When West Ham made the trip to Luton Town at the start of last season, the ball struck the hand of the West Ham United midfielder after it had come over the heads of other players. In both cases, Ward-Prowse had his arm raised but he was not expecting the ball to come all the way through.
On the decision at Luton, the KMI panel voted 4-1 that the referee was correct not to award a penalty, stating that "there was very little reaction time due to the ball coming over two players' heads and Ward-Prowse's arms are in an elevated position in anticipation to compete for the ball." The panel was unanimous that it wasn't a decision for the VAR to get involved in.
Verdict: Even before the Premier League's more relaxed interpretation of the handball law was introduced at the start of this season, it's apparent that there wasn't an expectation that a penalty should be awarded in a case like this -- and the two Ward-Prowse incidents are almost identical.
The VAR deemed Ward-Prowse's action was "accidental," which is probably the wrong choice of word considering very few handball penalties are really deliberate -- "unavoidable given the situation" is more suitable. It would probably be given in Europe, but not in the Premier League.
Possible foul: Van Dijk on Füllkrug before scoring
What happened: Liverpool won the game in the 89th minute when Van Dijk headed home another Mac Allister corner. However, Niclas Füllkrug was claiming he had been pushed in the back by the Liverpool captain to create the space. The VAR took a look.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: Van Dijk had his arms on Füllkrug's back, but there was no pushing motion to cause the West Ham player to be unable to challenge for the ball.
Verdict: This would have been an exceptionally soft VAR intervention, and not one we're likely to see in the Premier League.
Brighton 2-2 Leicester
Possible penalty: Handball by Coady
What happened: Brighton were on the attack in the 27th minute with Simon Adingra seeing his shot blocked by Conor Coady. There were appeals for a penalty, but referee Darren Bond allowed play to go on. The VAR, Stuart Attwell, checked for a possible penalty.
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by João Pedro.
VAR review: For the referee, it might have looked like the ball just hit Coady's arm, which was close to his body -- but it was clear from the replays that the Leicester City defender had leaned into the path of the ball, straightening his arm to stop the goal-bound shot.
This wouldn't be a red card for deliberate handball to stop a goal because goalkeeper Mads Hermansen and defender Luke Thomas were behind him, and either may have made a block.
Verdict: A very simple VAR intervention to award a spot kick.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Thomas on O'Riley
What happened: Adingra played a cross to the back post in the 51st minute, trying to find Matt O'Riley. The Denmark international took control of the ball, but Thomas grabbed hold of his shirt. The Brighton player went to ground, but again the referee wasn't interested in a penalty.
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Pedro.
VAR review: Thomas' problem was the sustained holding of the shirt, but was there enough for a VAR intervention? We've seen similar levels of holding in other situations and the VAR has left it alone.
It's probably one of the most difficult aspects for a VAR to judge, because the holding of the shirt is not in itself an offense -- the level of impact on the opponent is the determining factor.
Verdict: While the Coady decision was very straightforward, this could have gone either way and would depend upon which VAR you have on the game, and how they judge the pull of the shirt.
On another day, the VAR may feel the holding wasn't sufficient for the Brighton player to go down in the way he did, and play would continue. It's also debatable just how much of a hold Thomas had of the shirt.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.